First Lady flub: no touching the Queen

posted at 8:47 am on April 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This seems to be getting a lot of traction in the headlines, so let’s talk about Michelle Obama’s supposedly grand faux pas in meeting Queen Elizabeth II in London. Time Magazine reported that the British (which include the “English”) sputtered with indignation when the First Lady touched Elizabeth’s back. The reaction seems a little exaggerated, considering the circumstances, but it still broke protocol:

The rules are set in stone, and so the eagerly watching British media sputtered when the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, briefly put her hand on the back of Queen Elizabeth II as the two chatted at a reception. …

Of course, there are corollaries to this. One must certainly touch the Queen if the monarch offers her hand (though you should return this not with a firm handshake but just a touch). On Wednesday, Michelle Obama put her hand on the Queen only after the Queen had placed her own hand on the First Lady’s back as part of their conversation. So there is room for theological argument as to whether the American reciprocity of touch was allowable given the social dynamics of the situation. …

In any case, the touch lasted just a second or two, and the Queen did not seem particularly perturbed — though she appeared slightly surprised as she drew away.

I’m not much a fan of royalty and the pomp that accompanies the monarchy, so I tend to see this as a much lesser offense than getting the name of the country wrong. The gesture from the Queen would normally prompt a human response of reciprocation. Time’s explanation of the miraculous healing powers of the Queen’s touch is interesting from a historical perspective, but since Americans don’t tend to believe such things about monarchs (we made that clear in 1776, although the Princess Di infatuation may have confused some people), Mrs. Obama’s treatment of Elizabeth II as a mere mortal is somewhat understandable.

Of course, diplomatic protocol exists for a reason, and it’s clear Mrs. Obama didn’t adhere to it, if she ever got instruction on it in the first place. As it turns out, she might not have had it, since her husband hasn’t gotten around to staffing the White House protocol office. Apparently, no one told Barack Obama that the State Department had staff to fill the gap, either:

Only a few weeks on the job, Obama created a minor diplo-mess when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to the U.S. for a visit. Obama’s historic Oval Office desk, a gift from Queen Victoria to Rutherford Hayes, is made from the timbers of the HMS Resolute. Brown proudly presented Obama with a pencil holder carved from its antislavery sister ship, the HMS Gannet. Classy! Obama lamely reciprocated with a DVD set of Hollywood movies, including “Psycho.” When Brown got back home, he discovered they didn’t work in his European player. “At a minimum you don’t want to give offense,” says a former White House official who helped orchestrate foreign visits for a previous president. “That was really phoning it in.” (The official, like others quoted here, asked not to be named disparaging a sitting president.) Apparently it was a rookie mistake. According to a person close to the situation, Obama hasn’t yet appointed a chief of protocol and his staffers, still unpacking, didn’t realize that the State Department has an entire office dedicated to foreign visits.

Hiring a chief of protocol isn’t as high a priority as staffing, say, the Treasury, but the position is quite obviously critical to not looking like Ugly Americans when traveling the globe as head of state. I don’t think anyone has called this the Greatest Transition Ever in a while now. I think the bloom has left that rose, and this is just another example of the problem. Obama really had no clue as to the scope of this job.

So yes, Mrs. Obama committed a a small breach of protocol, but it’s not on the same level as the Angela Merkel back rub or replacing “Great Britain” with England.

So there is room for theological argument as to whether the American reciprocity of touch is allowable given the social dynamics of the situation.

This is very true. When I was bartending, I used to bump one of the waitresses in the butt with my knee whenever she poached into my domain; in return, she would slap me across the face. Reciprocity is the heart of any social dynamic.

First of all, expecting people outside of your country to adhere to your local customs, like not touching the Queen, has some similarity with Muslim leaders requiring that no female US soldiers be in their presence. But I agree that touching a Queen is different than just seeing female US soldiers.

But even if we stipulate that one does not touch the Queen, Michelle obviously made an honest mistake.

A low key statement of apology after they return to the US should be fine.

The Queen of England is just a human being, like anybody else. To say that you’re not allowed to touch her is ridiculous. A major point of the American Revolution was that no man should be subservient to a king.

You show the woman respect as a head of state, but they are *shudder* equals. One equal does not bow to another who stands. (Which is why I don’t have a problem with presidents bowing to leaders of Asian countries. If both people bow to one another, it is a sign of respect; if one person bows and one stands, the bower is declaring himself below the bowee.)

First of all, expecting people outside of your country to adhere to your local customs, like not touching the Queen, has some similarity with Muslim leaders requiring that no female US soldiers be in their presence.

Thresher on April 1, 2009 at 9:12 PM

The term is protocol – not local customs.

Research the hows and whys. Protocol is a useful tool when planning the engagement of world leaders such as this.

Think about baseball. There are rules in baseball. Obviously, no person is required to follow the rules of baseball, BUT IF YOU’RE PLAYING THE GAME, THEN YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RULES.

Planning the engagement between two world leaders would be very difficult if the players don’t agree to play by the rules.

First of all, expecting people outside of your country to adhere to your local customs, like not touching the Queen, has some similarity with Muslim leaders requiring that no female US soldiers be in their presence. But I agree that touching a Queen is different than just seeing female US soldiers.

But even if we stipulate that one does not touch the Queen, Michelle obviously made an honest mistake.

A low key statement of apology after they return to the US should be fine.

Thresher on April 1, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I disagree. Expecting someone to disinvite certain members of their honor guard because it offends their sensibilities, is different than heeding a custom of not touching someone because it’s considered culturally inappropriate by the hosts, especially if that person is the Queen of England.

And I wouldn’t call it a minor thing-it bespeaks a certain intellectual laziness. Obviously Ms. Michelle didn’t bother to study up on etiquette and protocol-a person in her position should be expected to do a lot better.

Gee, cheesy DVD Sets and IPODs as gifts, culturally inappropriate touching-I thought this was the type of behavior we were going to get if we elected the Wasilla Hillbilly and her clan, not the pretentious middlebrow left-wing phonies “urbane sophisticates” we did elect.

Taking bets as to whether Angela Merkel gets a set of ShamWows as a gift, because “you know, you Germans always make good stuff”.

So there is room for theological argument as to whether the American reciprocity of touch was allowable given the social dynamics of the situation. (Less explicable was when President George W. Bush winked at the Queen.)

The obligatory dig at President Bush, or else it’s not a real live news story!

It had to happen. When President Obama and wife Michelle met the Queen at Buckingham Palace, a Prince Philip gaffe was inevitable. In the small talk when they first met, the Queen and the Prince were sympathising with the President and his wife about their gruelling schedule since arriving late on Tuesday evening. “The time lag,” said the Queen, ever the diplomat. “You’re just trying to stay awake!” said Philip, ever the foot-in-mouth blunderer. Then the President told the Royals: “I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, David Cameron… “And I’m proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings.” A guffawing Prince Philip then blurted out: “Can you tell the difference between them?” Now at first I thought that was an insult to David Cameron. But perhaps not. I may be wrong. Perhaps it was a compliment for the Tory leader to be compared to two powerful world leaders. Either way, it was vintage Prince Philip!

I highly recommend you Netflixers out there to rent The Queen. It is a very well acted film chronicling the royal family and their reaction to the death of Princess Diana.
Queen Elizabeth II actually served during WW1 as a mechanic.

Can you say slow news day? I hardly think Her Majesty cared that Michelle gentle touched her shoulder. Better than W. accosting Angela Merkel with the moves of a sexual predator creeping up on his prey.

This story doesn’t bother me. I hate that the Obamas gave her an iPod, and that they are so generally contemptuous and classless, but I don’t think the FLOTUS has to treat the crowned head of England according to some higher protocol than would be expected by any other head of state. Her cute little kingdom is a good friend and ally, but we are not their subjects.

Queen or not, it is impolite for a young person to put their hands on an 86 year old woman. It’s not done. As a general rule, you don’t touch anybody you don’t know personally. Especially the very elderly, especially the Queen of England.

That woman has no common sense judgment. Just like her husband. She thinks she’s the Queen’s equal.

I remember seeing Bill Clinton meet with the Pope and put his hand on the guy’s back. I’m no more Catholic than I am Buddhist, but I was shocked when I saw that. I mean, do you really NEED a protocol snot to tell you not to manhandle the freakin’ POPE?

It wasn’t even something I’d consider appropriate for normal guys palling around. It looked for all the world like he was guiding some floozy to her bar stool. I would have been insulted if somebody had done that to *ME*.

I never heard a word about that in the media though. This probably won’t make the alphabet network news at all either.

I don’t know about all of the protocol or customs, but it seems to me that in 1776 we declared that we would touch whatever Royal is on the throne and in 1783 we asserted that we could. In 1815 we reaffirmed.

Obama will kill this country with all of the socialist spending and social engineering, but this Queen touching is a load of BS.

Well Michelle was only giving her royal blessings to the Queen Mother. They are equals in her mind.

William Amos on April 1, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I’m no fan of the Obamas, not even close, however the queen of England isn’t our ruler and we are not beneath her. Monarchy is a silly outdated concept that should disappear. The whole foundation of our country was based on the premise THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. If the British want to keep their little museum piece, so be it, but to suggest that she is somehow better than the POTUS (vile Obama aside, let’s pretend that we’re talking about Reagan – and there was some sort of “scandal” about the Reagan’s visit if I recall) is ridiculous.

I don’t think this is a huge deal but it does highlight something that’s bugged me about the Obamas. Obama constantly thumping a persons shoulder, whether it’s a reporter he’s pissed at (in the press room) or at a frail Ted Kennedy (during his last public appearance), is either patronizing, aggressive, disrespectful, condescending, arrogant or all of the above.